Summary
The Court affirmed liability of a hospital, two paediatricians and an ophthalmologist for failing to screen a premature infant for retinopathy of prematurity or advise the parents about necessary screening and follow-up, resulting in permanent blindness. The expert report rested on premises contradicted by the original records. Compensation was enhanced from Rs.64 lakh to Rs.76 lakh with supervised investments to protect the child’s welfare.
Issues
- Whether the records established timely screening and proper follow-up advice.
- Whether the expert report precluded a finding of medical negligence.
- Whether the hospital was vicariously liable and compensation required enhancement.
Provisions considered
- Regulations 1.3.2 and 7.2, Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002Withholding requested medical records for over two years violated the seventy-two-hour obligation and constituted professional misconduct and deficient service. (¶¶ 11.1.2, 11.1.3, 11.1.6, 11.1.7)
Held
- The hospital’s prolonged withholding of records breached its statutory obligation and constituted grave professional misconduct and gross deficiency in service. (¶¶ 11.1.1, 11.1.2, 11.1.3, 11.1.4, 11.1.5, 11.1.6, 11.1.7)
- The original records did not establish the claimed screening, and the discharge and subsequent visits contained no necessary screening or follow-up advice. The parents attended the appropriate paediatric unit; blaming them was unfounded. Failure to follow contemporaneous screening standards caused the missed opportunity for timely diagnosis and treatment. (¶¶ 11.2.6, 11.2.7, 11.2.8, 11.2.9, 11.2.10, 11.4.13, 11.4.14, 11.4.15, 11.4.16)
- Expert evidence is advisory. The AIIMS report relied on the disputed screening entry and the mistaken premise that the child had not attended the paediatric OPD. It could not displace conclusions independently drawn from the records. The complainants discharged their initial burden and the appellants failed to establish screening or advice. (¶¶ 11.3.1, 11.3.2, 11.3.3, 11.3.4)
- The hospital was vicariously liable for negligence of doctors engaged or empanelled to provide care. All four appellants were jointly and severally liable. (¶¶ 11.4.17, 11.4.18)
- Unaccounted attendant, special education and assistive-device expenses justified a further Rs.12 lakh. The Rs.76 lakh total comprised Rs.60 lakh for the child, Rs.15 lakh for his caregiver mother subject to adjustment of Rs.5 lakh already released, and Rs.1 lakh litigation costs. Specified investments and reinvestments required Registrar supervision, with no corpus withdrawal without permission. (¶¶ 11.5.4, 11.5.5, 11.5.6, 11.5.7, 11.5.8)
Result
Hospital and doctors’ appeal dismissed; complainants’ appeal allowed. Compensation enhanced to Rs.76 lakh with supervised investment directions. The appellants must deposit the Rs.44 lakh balance within twelve weeks and file a compliance affidavit. Accrued interest of about Rs.3,80,954 on the earlier deposit was directed to the mother for the child’s current-year welfare and education.